Showing posts with label Liberal Idiocy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Liberal Idiocy. Show all posts
Monday, November 10, 2008
Obama ready to "rule" as President
Newsbusters.org
The co-chair of Barack Obama's Transition Team, Valerie Jarrett, appeared on Meet the Press this weekend and used, shall we say, an interesting word to described what she thinks Barack Obama will be doing in January when he's officially sworn into office. She told Tom Brokaw that Obama will be ready to "rule" on day one. It's a word that reflects the worst fears that people have for Obama the "arrogant," the "messiah," that imagines he's here to "rule" instead of govern.
Jarret told Brokaw that "given the daunting challenges that we face, it's important that president elect Obama is prepared to really take power and begin to rule day one."
Someone needs to get to Jarrett and inform her that American politicians are not Kings and do not "rule" from office. But if this is the attitude of Obama's transition team, what does The One himself imagine he is about to unleash? Could the fears that Obama thinks he is being anointed America's King be far off with this sort of talk flying about?
Monday, November 03, 2008
Obama vs. Jobs
Pittsburgh Tribune-Review
Ralph R. Reiland
I interviewed two plumbing company owners over the weekend about Barack Obama's economic proposals for small business.
One has 15 employees and 12 trucks. The other has 52 employees and 34 trucks. They're Joe the Plumber, writ large.
Both owners had the same reaction to Obama's proposed new taxes and mandates. To not have their bottom lines reduced by government fiat, both said they'd be forced to lay off employees.
Specifically, here's what the owner of the larger firm said regarding six of Obama's key proposals for the small-business sector: The average wage at his company, figuring the 52 paychecks of his office staff, installers and service workers, is $31,200, $15 an hour.
First, "Barack Obama and Joe Biden will require that employers provide seven paid sick days per year," states the Obama campaign's Web site. "I give three paid sick days," explained the business owner. His extra cost for this one new regulation would be $24,960 (4 extra days, 52 employees, at an average of $120 per day). "That's one of the women in the office," he said. "I can make up that cost by letting one of the office people go."
Second, Obama states that employers will be required to pay 100 percent of the cost of health insurance premiums for 100 percent of their employees or face a tax penalty. "I pay 75 percent of their coverage," explained the owner. "The family policy is about $11,000. For single guys, it's about $5,000." At an average annual cost of $7,000 per policy, his additional cost for 52 employees to cover the 25 percent of the premiums that he currently doesn't pay is $91,000. "That's the price of three installers," he said. "Just to stay even with where I am, I'd have to fire three more people or raise some prices and fire two."
The result is more unemployment or more inflation, or both.
Third, with the estate tax, Obama is calling for a top tax rate of 45 percent on estates valued above $3.5 million, producing an estimated "death tax" of $675,000 on an estate of $5 million. "You're kidding," he said. "They took half my income on the way up and now they want another half when I die?" He estimated that his business is already valued at more than $3 million, in addition to the value of his home and investments. "Why," he asked, "would I want to grow to 100 employees? What'll stop them from changing it to 75 percent?"
The cost in jobs that will never be created in the U.S. economy because of this single disincentive to growth? Incalculable.
Fourth, Obama's economic plan calls for a hike in the minimum wage to $9.50 an hour within three years. The business owner's reaction? "That's bad for two reasons. I don't have anyone at minimum, but raise the bottom by $3 and a guy making $15 wants $18. Plus it's bad for productivity when people think their pay raises are coming from government instead of from their own individual effort."
Fifth, saying he'll "play offense for organized labor," Obama is proposing that workers should be denied the right to a private ballot at work in deciding whether to unionize. "That'll never be," said the plumbing entrepreneur. "I'm in business because I'm independent, not to take orders from a grievance chairman. I'd shut down."
Sixth, the increase in taxes on this small business owner from Obama's proposed hike in the income tax rate from 36% to 39.8% on incomes above $200,000 and the proposed increase in Social Security taxes comes to $32,000 per year. "That's another employee," he said, referring to the termination of another installer in order to just stay even.
And the jobless plumbers? They can be re-socialized to work for ACORN.
As Obama explained in July: "We cannot continue to rely on our military to achieve the national security objectives we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well funded."
As "well funded" as our Armed Forces personnel comes to $119 billion per year in paychecks for "community activism," a lot of money for registering dead voters, caulking windows, making sure that all the guns are locked up at the municipal buildings, and monitoring the airways to make sure that conservatives don't have too many talk shows.
Bottom line, Obama's economic plan doesn't hold water. Neither will our pipes.
Ralph R. Reiland
I interviewed two plumbing company owners over the weekend about Barack Obama's economic proposals for small business.
One has 15 employees and 12 trucks. The other has 52 employees and 34 trucks. They're Joe the Plumber, writ large.
Both owners had the same reaction to Obama's proposed new taxes and mandates. To not have their bottom lines reduced by government fiat, both said they'd be forced to lay off employees.
Specifically, here's what the owner of the larger firm said regarding six of Obama's key proposals for the small-business sector: The average wage at his company, figuring the 52 paychecks of his office staff, installers and service workers, is $31,200, $15 an hour.
First, "Barack Obama and Joe Biden will require that employers provide seven paid sick days per year," states the Obama campaign's Web site. "I give three paid sick days," explained the business owner. His extra cost for this one new regulation would be $24,960 (4 extra days, 52 employees, at an average of $120 per day). "That's one of the women in the office," he said. "I can make up that cost by letting one of the office people go."
Second, Obama states that employers will be required to pay 100 percent of the cost of health insurance premiums for 100 percent of their employees or face a tax penalty. "I pay 75 percent of their coverage," explained the owner. "The family policy is about $11,000. For single guys, it's about $5,000." At an average annual cost of $7,000 per policy, his additional cost for 52 employees to cover the 25 percent of the premiums that he currently doesn't pay is $91,000. "That's the price of three installers," he said. "Just to stay even with where I am, I'd have to fire three more people or raise some prices and fire two."
The result is more unemployment or more inflation, or both.
Third, with the estate tax, Obama is calling for a top tax rate of 45 percent on estates valued above $3.5 million, producing an estimated "death tax" of $675,000 on an estate of $5 million. "You're kidding," he said. "They took half my income on the way up and now they want another half when I die?" He estimated that his business is already valued at more than $3 million, in addition to the value of his home and investments. "Why," he asked, "would I want to grow to 100 employees? What'll stop them from changing it to 75 percent?"
The cost in jobs that will never be created in the U.S. economy because of this single disincentive to growth? Incalculable.
Fourth, Obama's economic plan calls for a hike in the minimum wage to $9.50 an hour within three years. The business owner's reaction? "That's bad for two reasons. I don't have anyone at minimum, but raise the bottom by $3 and a guy making $15 wants $18. Plus it's bad for productivity when people think their pay raises are coming from government instead of from their own individual effort."
Fifth, saying he'll "play offense for organized labor," Obama is proposing that workers should be denied the right to a private ballot at work in deciding whether to unionize. "That'll never be," said the plumbing entrepreneur. "I'm in business because I'm independent, not to take orders from a grievance chairman. I'd shut down."
Sixth, the increase in taxes on this small business owner from Obama's proposed hike in the income tax rate from 36% to 39.8% on incomes above $200,000 and the proposed increase in Social Security taxes comes to $32,000 per year. "That's another employee," he said, referring to the termination of another installer in order to just stay even.
And the jobless plumbers? They can be re-socialized to work for ACORN.
As Obama explained in July: "We cannot continue to rely on our military to achieve the national security objectives we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well funded."
As "well funded" as our Armed Forces personnel comes to $119 billion per year in paychecks for "community activism," a lot of money for registering dead voters, caulking windows, making sure that all the guns are locked up at the municipal buildings, and monitoring the airways to make sure that conservatives don't have too many talk shows.
Bottom line, Obama's economic plan doesn't hold water. Neither will our pipes.
Monday, August 18, 2008
Democrats Offer Lesson in Misleading on Taxes
Bloomberg.com
Kevin Hassett
Last week, the Government Accountability Office released a report that revealed why Washington is so broken: Democratic politicians too often act like U.S. businesses are the enemy.
The report had the unassuming title of ``Comparison of the Reported Tax Liabilities of Foreign- and U.S.-Controlled Corporations, 1998-2005.'' It is hard to imagine that such a dry topic could set off a firestorm, but it did.
The problem was the first chart in the report. It showed that 60 percent to 70 percent of companies in the U.S. pay no taxes. That led to an Associated Press story with the startling headline, ``Most Companies in U.S. Avoid Federal Income Taxes,'' and to a frenzy of business bashing by leading Democrats.
Byron Dorgan, the Democratic senator from North Dakota, said in a statement, ``It's shameful that so many corporations make big profits and pay nothing to support our country.'' House Speaker Nancy Pelosi piled on, arguing that the data revealed a fundamental unfairness in the U.S. system, and called for reform.
``When two-thirds of corporations pay no taxes,'' Pelosi said, ``American workers are forced to pay too much in taxes even as they cope with rising prices and falling wages.''
The study seemed to play right into the Democratic us- against-them playbook. Evil corporations rake in the cash and then play dirty tricks to avoid taxes. That leaves the little guy with the bill for our government.
The problem is, the study showed no such thing.
No Profit, No Tax
First, while it is true that 60 percent to 70 percent of companies in the study paid no tax in a given year, there was a big qualification. The study focused on an Internal Revenue Service tax database that included millions and millions of companies. The vast majority of firms in the study were tiny mom- and-pop enterprises.
Why did the tiny mom-and-pop enterprises pay no taxes? Because they didn't make any money! The study reported that was the reason about 80 percent of the firms in the sample avoided taxes in a given year. How terrible of them.
If the GAO issued a report that added together data for nine hot dog stands and General Electric Co., and found that 90 percent of companies didn't pay any tax, it would be a harmless and silly thing to do. But if the Democrats then rush to the microphones and insinuate to the general public that 90 percent of companies are tax dodgers, the stakes change.
How can it be that so many small businesses made no money? Companies tended to have no profits because they had large deductions including wages. Hot dog vendors can pay themselves a wage, in which case they have no profits but pay wage taxes, or they can take their money in profits, in which case they pay profits tax. The data suggest they tend to do the former.
Double Taxation
Most of them do this for a simple reason: we still have double taxation of dividends. If you are a hot dog vendor in the top tax bracket and you pay yourself $100, then you pay $35 in taxes. If you keep it as profit and then pay it to yourself as a dividend, you pay a $35 corporate tax, and then a 15 percent dividend tax on top of it. Why would anyone choose the latter? To do so would be to pay more taxes voluntarily.
For big corporations, the story is different, and utterly inconsistent with the Democratic screed. The study found that about 75 percent of large companies (those with sales above $50 million) paid taxes in 2005, about typical for recent U.S. history. And those that didn't pay taxes in 2005 did so earlier, so almost no companies went through the sample period without paying taxes. The latter is, again, typical.
News Hole
In other words, there was virtually no news in the study. But that didn't stop the Democrats, and that's what is so disturbing. Democratic politicians misused and misrepresented the results of this modest GAO study to bash America's corporations and call for sweeping ``reforms.'' If they will do so in response to this minor document, one can only conclude that they will do so on the flimsiest of excuses.
Leaders of the Democratic Party are so eager to portray American business as villainous that they will twist and distort facts in order justify even more punitive taxes than we already have.
The truth is, of course, that we are all in it together. Workers will have better jobs if the U.S. is a more attractive climate for corporations. That means we need to reduce corporate taxes, not increase them.
And that is why Washington is so broken. You can't split the difference when one side is so egregiously wrong.
Kevin Hassett
Last week, the Government Accountability Office released a report that revealed why Washington is so broken: Democratic politicians too often act like U.S. businesses are the enemy.
The report had the unassuming title of ``Comparison of the Reported Tax Liabilities of Foreign- and U.S.-Controlled Corporations, 1998-2005.'' It is hard to imagine that such a dry topic could set off a firestorm, but it did.
The problem was the first chart in the report. It showed that 60 percent to 70 percent of companies in the U.S. pay no taxes. That led to an Associated Press story with the startling headline, ``Most Companies in U.S. Avoid Federal Income Taxes,'' and to a frenzy of business bashing by leading Democrats.
Byron Dorgan, the Democratic senator from North Dakota, said in a statement, ``It's shameful that so many corporations make big profits and pay nothing to support our country.'' House Speaker Nancy Pelosi piled on, arguing that the data revealed a fundamental unfairness in the U.S. system, and called for reform.
``When two-thirds of corporations pay no taxes,'' Pelosi said, ``American workers are forced to pay too much in taxes even as they cope with rising prices and falling wages.''
The study seemed to play right into the Democratic us- against-them playbook. Evil corporations rake in the cash and then play dirty tricks to avoid taxes. That leaves the little guy with the bill for our government.
The problem is, the study showed no such thing.
No Profit, No Tax
First, while it is true that 60 percent to 70 percent of companies in the study paid no tax in a given year, there was a big qualification. The study focused on an Internal Revenue Service tax database that included millions and millions of companies. The vast majority of firms in the study were tiny mom- and-pop enterprises.
Why did the tiny mom-and-pop enterprises pay no taxes? Because they didn't make any money! The study reported that was the reason about 80 percent of the firms in the sample avoided taxes in a given year. How terrible of them.
If the GAO issued a report that added together data for nine hot dog stands and General Electric Co., and found that 90 percent of companies didn't pay any tax, it would be a harmless and silly thing to do. But if the Democrats then rush to the microphones and insinuate to the general public that 90 percent of companies are tax dodgers, the stakes change.
How can it be that so many small businesses made no money? Companies tended to have no profits because they had large deductions including wages. Hot dog vendors can pay themselves a wage, in which case they have no profits but pay wage taxes, or they can take their money in profits, in which case they pay profits tax. The data suggest they tend to do the former.
Double Taxation
Most of them do this for a simple reason: we still have double taxation of dividends. If you are a hot dog vendor in the top tax bracket and you pay yourself $100, then you pay $35 in taxes. If you keep it as profit and then pay it to yourself as a dividend, you pay a $35 corporate tax, and then a 15 percent dividend tax on top of it. Why would anyone choose the latter? To do so would be to pay more taxes voluntarily.
For big corporations, the story is different, and utterly inconsistent with the Democratic screed. The study found that about 75 percent of large companies (those with sales above $50 million) paid taxes in 2005, about typical for recent U.S. history. And those that didn't pay taxes in 2005 did so earlier, so almost no companies went through the sample period without paying taxes. The latter is, again, typical.
News Hole
In other words, there was virtually no news in the study. But that didn't stop the Democrats, and that's what is so disturbing. Democratic politicians misused and misrepresented the results of this modest GAO study to bash America's corporations and call for sweeping ``reforms.'' If they will do so in response to this minor document, one can only conclude that they will do so on the flimsiest of excuses.
Leaders of the Democratic Party are so eager to portray American business as villainous that they will twist and distort facts in order justify even more punitive taxes than we already have.
The truth is, of course, that we are all in it together. Workers will have better jobs if the U.S. is a more attractive climate for corporations. That means we need to reduce corporate taxes, not increase them.
And that is why Washington is so broken. You can't split the difference when one side is so egregiously wrong.
Tuesday, August 05, 2008
Drill, Drill, Drill Is Working
RealClearPolitics
Lawrence Kudlow
As Sen. John McCain and the GOP leadership nationalize the drill, drill, drill message, the Republican party might conceivably be riding a summer political rally. The question of offshore drilling, along with expanded domestic energy production, has suddenly become the biggest political and economic wedge issue of this election. Is there a Republican tsunami in the making?
According to the major polls, Sen. McCain has overcome a big deficit to pull even with Obama. Meanwhile, according to a Rasmussen survey, Democratic party identification has slumped.
While Republicans on the House floor shouted "vote, vote, vote" and "lower gas prices," the Democratic majority turned off the lights, cameras, and microphones. Determined Republican Senate leader Mitch McConnell offered unanimous-consent requests to vote on lifting the ban on deep-water exploration, and the Democrats objected. When McConnell asked Democrats if they'd overturn the ban at $4.50 a gallon, they replied "no." When he raised the price to $5, $7, and $10, they cried "no," "no," and "no."
On the Stephanopoulos Sunday news show, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi underscored her refusal to allow a drilling vote. Asked about the Republican rebellion in the House, she said, "What you saw in the Congress this week was the war dance of the handmaidens of the oil companies." She went on to say, "We are spending all of this time on a parliamentary tactic, when nothing less is at stake than the planet, the air we breathe, our children breathe."
There is a voter revolt going on, and it reminds me of the anti-tax rebellion that lifted Ronald Reagan into office twenty-eight years ago. Is the conventional wisdom about to be swept away? As Republicans press home the drill, drill, drill message, might they pick up seats in Congress this year? And might the national clamor for a more realistic and balanced energy policy -- one that includes more oil, natural gas, clean coal, nuclear, and the alternatives of wind, solar, and cellulosic -- carry John McCain to a convincing victory over Obama?
Without even realizing it, the GOP drilling offensive has become a new contract with America. And it appears to be working. The public is putting aside global warming and choosing instead new-energy production, a stronger economy, and more job creation. Voters want growth, not austerity. They want Ronald Reagan, not Thomas Malthus. And by resisting this grassroots call, the Democratic party is digging itself into one of the biggest political dry holes in history.
New economic statistics highlight the damage done by the unprecedented oil-price shock. Only a year ago real gross domestic product was growing at 4 to 5 percent. Then came the dramatic rise of energy prices and down came the economy.
GDP contracted slightly late last year and rose a miniscule 0.9 percent in this year's first quarter. And although real growth picked up to nearly 2 percent in the second quarter, that number is suspect since the government does not count surging import prices from food and energy.
Wall Street blames everything on the housing slump and the sub-prime credit crisis. Of course, these are significant. But the drop in housing starts, sales, and prices has been going on for nearly two years, without crunching down the economy.
It's the oil shock that has brought us perilously close to recession. In fact, despite a slight rise in GDP, nonfarm corporate payrolls have declined for seven consecutive months while private payrolls have fallen for eight straight months. A year ago the unemployment rate was 4.5 percent. Today it's 5.7 percent. Topping it off, the inflation rate has climbed from 2 to 4 percent over the past year.
Right now the recession call is still an open question. But the economic damage caused by skyrocketing energy prices is a no-brainer.
When President George W. Bush eliminated the executive moratorium on offshore drilling a month ago, effectively launching the drill, drill, drill offensive, oil was close to $150 a barrel. Since then, the barrel price has dropped to nearly $120 as futures-market traders anticipate a major shift in federal drilling policy.
Over at the Intrade pay-to-play prediction market, the probability of an offshore drilling bill passing in 2008 is now handicapped at 50 percent, up from 25 percent only a few days ago. Clearly, investors know market prices will move well before we see actual new energy supplies from offshore drilling. The likelihood of greater energy supply will incentivize those much-vilified traders to slash barrel prices much more, bringing relief at the pump and earning the gratitude of a whole nation.
At the same time, those wrongheaded Democratic leaders, from Obama to Reid to Pelosi, will see their political fortunes plummet deep into bear-market territory.
Lawrence Kudlow
As Sen. John McCain and the GOP leadership nationalize the drill, drill, drill message, the Republican party might conceivably be riding a summer political rally. The question of offshore drilling, along with expanded domestic energy production, has suddenly become the biggest political and economic wedge issue of this election. Is there a Republican tsunami in the making?
According to the major polls, Sen. McCain has overcome a big deficit to pull even with Obama. Meanwhile, according to a Rasmussen survey, Democratic party identification has slumped.
While Republicans on the House floor shouted "vote, vote, vote" and "lower gas prices," the Democratic majority turned off the lights, cameras, and microphones. Determined Republican Senate leader Mitch McConnell offered unanimous-consent requests to vote on lifting the ban on deep-water exploration, and the Democrats objected. When McConnell asked Democrats if they'd overturn the ban at $4.50 a gallon, they replied "no." When he raised the price to $5, $7, and $10, they cried "no," "no," and "no."
On the Stephanopoulos Sunday news show, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi underscored her refusal to allow a drilling vote. Asked about the Republican rebellion in the House, she said, "What you saw in the Congress this week was the war dance of the handmaidens of the oil companies." She went on to say, "We are spending all of this time on a parliamentary tactic, when nothing less is at stake than the planet, the air we breathe, our children breathe."
Without even realizing it, the GOP drilling offensive has become a new contract with America.Oh really? Voters have a much different view. Polls suggest that two-thirds to three-quarters of the nation wants to drill. To wit, while a just-released Obama campaign ad attacks McCain as a tool of big oil, McCain has taken his first-ever lead in a Rasmussen tracking poll.
There is a voter revolt going on, and it reminds me of the anti-tax rebellion that lifted Ronald Reagan into office twenty-eight years ago. Is the conventional wisdom about to be swept away? As Republicans press home the drill, drill, drill message, might they pick up seats in Congress this year? And might the national clamor for a more realistic and balanced energy policy -- one that includes more oil, natural gas, clean coal, nuclear, and the alternatives of wind, solar, and cellulosic -- carry John McCain to a convincing victory over Obama?
Without even realizing it, the GOP drilling offensive has become a new contract with America. And it appears to be working. The public is putting aside global warming and choosing instead new-energy production, a stronger economy, and more job creation. Voters want growth, not austerity. They want Ronald Reagan, not Thomas Malthus. And by resisting this grassroots call, the Democratic party is digging itself into one of the biggest political dry holes in history.
New economic statistics highlight the damage done by the unprecedented oil-price shock. Only a year ago real gross domestic product was growing at 4 to 5 percent. Then came the dramatic rise of energy prices and down came the economy.
GDP contracted slightly late last year and rose a miniscule 0.9 percent in this year's first quarter. And although real growth picked up to nearly 2 percent in the second quarter, that number is suspect since the government does not count surging import prices from food and energy.
Wall Street blames everything on the housing slump and the sub-prime credit crisis. Of course, these are significant. But the drop in housing starts, sales, and prices has been going on for nearly two years, without crunching down the economy.
It's the oil shock that has brought us perilously close to recession. In fact, despite a slight rise in GDP, nonfarm corporate payrolls have declined for seven consecutive months while private payrolls have fallen for eight straight months. A year ago the unemployment rate was 4.5 percent. Today it's 5.7 percent. Topping it off, the inflation rate has climbed from 2 to 4 percent over the past year.
Right now the recession call is still an open question. But the economic damage caused by skyrocketing energy prices is a no-brainer.
When President George W. Bush eliminated the executive moratorium on offshore drilling a month ago, effectively launching the drill, drill, drill offensive, oil was close to $150 a barrel. Since then, the barrel price has dropped to nearly $120 as futures-market traders anticipate a major shift in federal drilling policy.
Over at the Intrade pay-to-play prediction market, the probability of an offshore drilling bill passing in 2008 is now handicapped at 50 percent, up from 25 percent only a few days ago. Clearly, investors know market prices will move well before we see actual new energy supplies from offshore drilling. The likelihood of greater energy supply will incentivize those much-vilified traders to slash barrel prices much more, bringing relief at the pump and earning the gratitude of a whole nation.
At the same time, those wrongheaded Democratic leaders, from Obama to Reid to Pelosi, will see their political fortunes plummet deep into bear-market territory.
Monday, July 14, 2008
Drill, baby, drill
"Congressional attacks on speculation do not alter the oil market’s fundamental demand and supply conditions. What would lower the long-term price of oil is for Congress to permit exploration for the estimated billions upon billions of barrels of oil domestically available, not to mention the estimated trillion-plus barrels of shale oil in Wyoming, Colorado and Utah. Some politicians pooh-pooh calls for drilling, saying it would take five or 10 years to recover the oil. I guarantee you we would begin to see a reduction in today’s prices even if it took five to 10 years for us to get the first barrel. Put yourself in the place of an OPEC member knowing there would be a greater supply of U.S. oil five or 10 years, hence maybe driving oil prices lower to say $40 a barrel. What will you want to do now while oil is $130 a barrel? You would want to sell as much oil now and OPEC’s collective efforts to do so would put downward pressures on current oil prices. Right now the U.S. Congress is OPEC’s staunchest ally."
— Walter Williams
— Walter Williams
Monday, June 30, 2008
"In response to skyrocketing gas prices, liberals say, practically in unison, ‘We can’t drill our way out of this crisis.’
What does that mean?... Finding more oil isn’t going to increase the supply of oil? It is the typical Democratic strategy to babble meaningless slogans, as if they have a plan... Liberals complain that—as B. Hussein Obama put it—there’s ‘no way that allowing offshore drilling would lower gas prices right now. At best you are looking at five years or more down the road.’...
What was going on five years ago? Why didn’t anyone propose drilling back then? Say, you know what we need? We need a class of people paid to anticipate national crises and plan solutions in advance. It would be such an important job, the taxpayers would pay them salaries so they wouldn’t have to worry about making a living and could just sit around anticipating crises. If only we had had such a group—let’s call them ‘elected representatives’ —they could have proposed drilling five years ago!
But of course we do pay people to anticipate national problems and propose solutions. Some of them—we’ll call them Republicans—did anticipate high gas prices and propose solutions. Six long years ago President Bush had the foresight to demand that Congress allow drilling in a minuscule portion of the Alaska’s barren, uninhabitable Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). In 2002, Bush, Tom DeLay and the entire Republican Party were screaming from the rooftops: Drill! Drill! Drill! We’d be gushing oil now—except the Democrats stopped us from drilling. Drilling on only 0.01 percent of ANWR’s 19 million acres was projected to produce about 10 billion barrels of oil. From all domestic sources combined, we currently produce about 1.8 billion barrels of oil per year. To a layperson like myself, 10 billion barrels seems like a lot of oil."
— Ann Coulter
What does that mean?... Finding more oil isn’t going to increase the supply of oil? It is the typical Democratic strategy to babble meaningless slogans, as if they have a plan... Liberals complain that—as B. Hussein Obama put it—there’s ‘no way that allowing offshore drilling would lower gas prices right now. At best you are looking at five years or more down the road.’...
What was going on five years ago? Why didn’t anyone propose drilling back then? Say, you know what we need? We need a class of people paid to anticipate national crises and plan solutions in advance. It would be such an important job, the taxpayers would pay them salaries so they wouldn’t have to worry about making a living and could just sit around anticipating crises. If only we had had such a group—let’s call them ‘elected representatives’ —they could have proposed drilling five years ago!
But of course we do pay people to anticipate national problems and propose solutions. Some of them—we’ll call them Republicans—did anticipate high gas prices and propose solutions. Six long years ago President Bush had the foresight to demand that Congress allow drilling in a minuscule portion of the Alaska’s barren, uninhabitable Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). In 2002, Bush, Tom DeLay and the entire Republican Party were screaming from the rooftops: Drill! Drill! Drill! We’d be gushing oil now—except the Democrats stopped us from drilling. Drilling on only 0.01 percent of ANWR’s 19 million acres was projected to produce about 10 billion barrels of oil. From all domestic sources combined, we currently produce about 1.8 billion barrels of oil per year. To a layperson like myself, 10 billion barrels seems like a lot of oil."
— Ann Coulter
